By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Rhodes, a Christian nationalist, no longer identifies as MAGA due to perceived divisions within the movement and the political right. Despite his commuted sentence for seditious conspiracy, he plans to seek a pardon from the former president, even if it means speaking out against what he views as concerning events in the country. Rhodes asserts that he owes it to those who have sworn oaths to remain vocal about these issues.
Read the original article here
The recent pronouncements from the founder of the Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes, signal a significant, albeit unsurprising, shift in his allegiance, moving away from the MAGA movement following perceived provocations related to a potential Iran war. This departure, however, is far from a wholesale renunciation of his core beliefs, as many observers have pointed out. Instead, it appears to be a strategic repositioning, a recalibration of his nationalist and Christian nationalist identity, rather than a genuine embrace of more moderate or progressive ideologies.
The very language Rhodes employs in articulating his newfound stance highlights this continuity. He now identifies as an “America-only patriot” and an “American Christian nationalist.” While he claims to have “opened his eyes to the reality in front of his face,” leading to a division within MAGA and the broader political right, the substance of his ideology seems to remain remarkably consistent. This suggests a move not away from extremism, but perhaps towards a more tailored form of it, one that feels more aligned with his personal interpretation of patriotism and national interest.
The irony of his supposed epiphany is not lost on those closely following these developments. The notion that he can condemn the MAGA movement while simultaneously harboring and expressing views that are fundamentally aligned with its more extreme elements is a glaring contradiction. His critique seems to stem less from an objection to the underlying principles of authoritarianism or exclusionary nationalism, and more from specific policy decisions or perceived leadership failures within the MAGA framework.
Crucially, the context of his past actions and the legal entanglements he faces seem to heavily influence his public pronouncements. The fact that he is reportedly seeking a pardon from the very president he is now distancing himself from raises serious questions about the sincerity of his break. This pursuit of clemency, particularly in light of his conviction for seditious conspiracy related to the January 6th Capitol attack, suggests a pragmatic calculation rather than a moral awakening.
Many have pointed out the selective outrage expressed by Rhodes. His primary objections, as implied by some commentary, appear to be related to the potential for war with Iran, which he might view as detrimental to his “America-only” agenda or as a distraction from other pressing issues. This is juxtaposed with an apparent indifference to other deeply concerning aspects of the MAGA movement, such as allegations of pedophilia. This selective moral compass suggests that his “reality” is defined by a very specific set of concerns, excluding issues that might be considered foundational to human rights or ethical conduct by a broader segment of society.
His declaration of no longer being “MAGA” is being interpreted by some as a calculated maneuver, a way to gain attention or leverage within the fractured landscape of the far-right. The idea that he might be trying to provoke a reaction, perhaps from Trump himself, to secure his desired pardon or reassert his influence, is a plausible interpretation of his actions. This strategic disavowal, timed as it is with his reported plans to visit Mar-a-Lago, underscores the transactional nature of his affiliations.
The observation that he “shot his own eye out” metaphorically encapsulates the sentiment that his current predicament is a direct consequence of his own choices and actions. His past involvement with the Oath Keepers, a group known for its anti-government stance and association with extremist ideologies, casts a long shadow over any claims of newfound clarity or patriotism. The criticisms leveled against him, ranging from accusations of being a “violent white supremacist authoritarian” to a “fascist piece of shit,” reflect a deep-seated distrust and a belief that his core nature remains unchanged.
Ultimately, the departure of a figure like Stewart Rhodes from the MAGA banner, even under these circumstances, might reveal more about the internal dynamics and the ideological fluidity of such movements than it does about a fundamental shift in his character. It suggests that even within these echo chambers of extremism, there can be fractures and realignments based on perceived self-interest, strategic calculations, and specific interpretations of national identity and purpose, all while a core of concerning beliefs appears to endure. The hope for some is that such internal divisions might weaken the movement’s overall cohesion and impact, but the underlying ideology, as many point out, seems to persist.